Taylor Made Water Systems

Okay, so that’s not a huge shocker of a headline to most of us, but here’s a pretty easy tip to lose a few pounds based on new Virginia Tech research.  Drinking a half liter (16.9 fl ounces) of water before meals helped the trial participants lose more weight and keep it off.  The researchers haven’t figured out exactly why this works, and there are many possible explanations, but as they say, it works and it’s easy, so give it a shot. 

 

http://www.economist.com/node/16881791?story_id=16881791

Drink till you drop

A magic elixir is shown to promote weight loss

 

CONSUME more water and you will become much healthier, goes an old wives’ tale. Drink a glass of water before meals and you will eat less, goes another. Such prescriptions seem sensible, but they have little rigorous science to back them up.

Until now, that is. A team led by Brenda Davy of Virginia Tech has run the first randomised controlled trial studying the link between water consumption and weight loss. A report on the 12-week trial, published earlier this year, suggested that drinking water before meals does lead to weight loss. At a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Boston this week, Dr Davy unveiled the results of a year-long follow-up study that confirms and expands that finding.

The researchers divided 48 inactive Americans, aged 55 to 75, into two groups. Members of one were told to drink half a litre of water (a bit more than an American pint) shortly before each of three daily meals. The others were given no instructions on what to drink. Before the trial, all participants had been consuming between 1,800 and 2,200 calories a day. When it began, the women’s daily rations were slashed to 1,200 calories, while the men were allowed 1,500. After three months the group that drank water before meals had lost about 7kg (15½lb) each, while those in the thirsty group lost only 5kg.

Dr Davy confidently bats away some obvious doubts about the results. There is no selection bias, she observes, since this is a randomised trial. It is possible that the water displaced sugary drinks in the hydrated group, but this does not explain the weight loss because the calories associated with any fizzy drinks consumed by the other group had to fall within the daily limits. Moreover, the effect seems to be long-lasting. In the subsequent 12 months the participants have been allowed to eat and drink what they like. Those told to drink water during the trial have, however, stuck with the habit—apparently they like it. Strikingly, they have continued to lose weight (around 700g over the year), whereas the others have put it back on.

Why this works is obscure. But work it does. It’s cheap. It’s simple. And unlike so much dietary advice, it seems to be enjoyable too

 

I like this, and not just because they are using a Point of Use Cooler, like our TM1R…

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/dc/dc-grocer-bans-water-bottles.html

D.C. grocer bans water bottles

 

MOM’s Organic Market is getting in on D.C.’s anti-plastic push with a decision to eliminate the sale of water bottles from its six regional markets.

As part of its “Battle the Bottle” campaign, the grocer plans to add water filtration machines in stores, allowing customers to fill their own bottles with up to a gallon at no cost. The new system should be in place within the next few weeks, Scott Nash, the founder and CEO of MOM’s, said.

"Societies are truly addicted to plastic, much in the way we are addicted to oil," Nash said in a statement.
Pollution and fears over potentially harmful chemicals in plastic bottles have helped drive anti-plastic sentiment in recent years.

In January, D.C. added a 5-cent tax on plastic bags that has forced a dramatic drop in their use.

Based on 15 years of data, a new report shows that over 2 million Californians have had harmful levels of nitrates in their water.  Nitrate sources include fertilizer, animal manure, and wastewater treatment.  According to the report, Nitrates are linked to “blue baby syndrome” and other health issues.  Public water systems are required to remove nitrates. 

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/16/MNLC1DCRMF.DTL

State’s nitrates problem grows unchecked

Julia Scott, California Watch

Monday, May 17, 2010

The water supply of more than 2 million Californians has been exposed to harmful levels of nitrates over the past 15 years, a period marked by lax regulatory efforts to contain the colorless and odorless contaminant, a California Watch investigation has found.

Nitrates are the most common groundwater contaminant in California and across the nation. A byproduct of nitrogen-based farm fertilizer, animal manure, wastewater treatment plants and leaky septic tanks, nitrates seep into the ground and can be expensive to extract.

The problem affects rural Californians and wealthier big-city water systems. State law requires public water systems to remove nitrates. But many rural communities don’t have access to the type of treatment systems available in metropolitan areas.

Nitrates have been linked to "blue baby syndrome," in which an infant’s oxygen supply is cut off.

Statewide, the number of wells that exceeded the health limit for nitrates jumped from nine in 1980 to 648 by 2007. Scientists anticipate a growing wave of nitrate problems in some parts of the state if remedial steps aren’t taken.

And yet the state’s patchwork regulatory efforts remain riddled with gaps that have allowed nitrate contamination to spread virtually unchecked. Consider:

– The leading source of nitrate pollution in many regions of the state – nitrogen fertilizer – is not regulated. Lettuce farmers can apply as much fertilizer as they want, within feet of a water supply well. Officials aren’t equipped to determine the sources of contamination to hold anyone accountable.

– Sixty-five percent of domestic wells at Central Valley dairies test over the public health limit for nitrates, putting residents at risk of potential exposure. Yet, according to records obtained from the state water board, none of the dairies was fined for a nitrate problem identified by the state.

– When polluters are found responsible for nitrate contamination, the state rarely does anything to correct it. California has issued 248 enforcement actions against 44 polluters for nitrate contamination in the past six years. But only once has the state ordered a polluter to clean up contaminated groundwater.

Families in rural communities typically pay more for tainted water than ratepayers hooked up to clean water systems. Residents in the tiny town of Seville in eastern Tulare County, for example, pay a monthly fee of $60 for nitrate-laden water that the county’s health department has warned them not to drink.

By comparison, the average water bill is $26.50 a month for San Francisco residents, who consume water from the pristine Hetch Hetchy water system.

"The people who are polluting the water, they don’t pay for that cleanup – the ratepayer does," said Debbie Davis, a legislative analyst with the Oakland-based Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, a network of groups advocating for clean water. "If California is going to meet the water challenges of the future, we have to figure out how to deal with nitrates."

Darrin Polhemus, deputy director of the State Water Resources Control Board’s division of water quality, said his agency has chosen to spend more time and resources dealing with chemicals such as perchlorate and dry cleaning solvents, which cause more acute health effects when leached into groundwater.

Contaminated wells

It’s not clear how often nitrate exposure leads to serious health problems, including acute "blue baby syndrome," because state officials do not keep records and doctors are not required to report such cases. Bottle-fed infants whose formula was prepared using water are at greatest risk if the water exceeds public health limits for nitrates.

Many of the state’s fastest-growing regions overlie vast stores of nitrate-polluted groundwater. In the eastern San Joaquin Valley, 1 in 3 domestic wells has nitrate levels that exceed public health limits.

One of those wells is on property owned by Camelia and Manuel Lopez in East Orosi, a small town in Tulare County.

The Lopez family volunteered to have their private well tested by the state last winter. The water contained nearly three times the federal health limit for nitrates, which is the equivalent of half a teaspoon in a swimming pool. Follow-up testing of the family’s tap water by California Watch confirmed those results.

"You would never imagine in this country that someone would have this problem," said Camelia Lopez, who emigrated from Mexico as a young woman and moved to the countryside from the Bay Area.

Now the family buys bottled water for drinking and cooking at a cost of $60 a month – a hardship because Manuel Lopez, a contractor, is unemployed.

Camelia Lopez has taught their three boys – ages 6, 16 and 18 – to brush their teeth with bottled water and keep their mouths closed when they’re in the shower. Putting filters on all the taps in the house would cost at least $750.

School water tainted

On the other side of Tulare County, nitrate problems have been one long, expensive headache for Norm Brown, principal of Citrus South Tule Elementary School in Porterville.

Several years ago, Brown applied for a state grant to dig a $100,000 well on school property to alleviate the school’s chronic nitrate problem, only to learn that the school’s groundwater basin was loaded with nitrates.

"I was really going to make a difference on that," Brown recalled. "But if they’re digging a well, they’re not going to find clean water. It’s a waste of money."

The school, which has 53 students, is one of 12 schools in the state with nitrate contamination in their well water, according to public health records.

Bottled water is the only affordable remedy for Citrus South, which pays more than $2,000 each year to stock its water coolers and distribute plastic cups. Brown is required to test the well water every month, at a cost of $2,500 last year, before sending the results to the county.

Officials say nitrates are so common and mobile that they are difficult to track once they get into the groundwater, making the contaminant hard to monitor.

"It is much more difficult to go out and identify a single cause of a nitrate problem in the area, and it can be also very difficult to identify responsible parties and figure out what corrective action needs to be taken," said Ken Landau, assistant executive officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Little enforcement

Farmers and companies are urged not to degrade groundwater but are mostly left to employ voluntary strategies to comply. Fruit and vegetable farmers are exempt from enforcement oversight of groundwater, according to a review of agricultural policies across the state.

The wells at Monterey Mushrooms Inc. in Watsonville, the nation’s largest marketer of fresh mushrooms, have exceeded nitrate limits 17 times, according to records reviewed by California Watch.

In 2006, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board cited the company for four of the violations. "Nitrate out of control!" one staff member scrawled on a lab report obtained by California Watch. But the facility has not been fined.

General Manager Wayne Bautista said the high nitrate readings are from a well closer to other fields on a ridge above the mushroom plant. He said the company has reduced the wastewater it applies to land.

Camelia Lopez feels helpless about her family’s nitrates problem, which testing has traced to animal manure, possibly from nearby cattle ranches, or a leaky septic system.

"Please care a little bit about this community," she says. "Just like I’m worried about this, there are other mothers with a lot of kids who are worried about this issue, too. If it were you and your kids in this community, what would you think? What would you do?"

California Watch is a project of the Center for Investigative Reporting with offices in the Bay Area and Sacramento. Read more about nitrate contamination on its Web site at www.californiawatch.org.

Water research

The State Water Resources Control Board has funded a series of studies by the U.S. Geological Survey to measure nitrates in groundwater across the state. Much of that information can be found in a searchable mapping database called GeoTracker:geotrackerbeta.ecointeractive.com/gama

The Battelle Study, initiated by the Water Quality Research Foundation, found that water softeners save a good deal of energy and money.  In fact, softeners were found to be one of “the best” energy savers available to households, especially with water heaters and other water using appliances.  The Water Quality Association is trying to get more publicity for the green benefits of water softeners when so much negative attention is focusing on the issue of salt discharge.  The Battelle study shows that the negative environmental impact of salt discharge is outweighed by reduced energy and chemical (soaps, detergents, etc.) usage.

http://wqa.org/pdf/pressreleases/battelleresults.pdf

 

Released: April 14, 2010

LISLE, Illinois — Water softeners can save significant amounts of money and energy in the home, a major new study by the independent Battelle Institute revealed.

Softeners help preserve the efficiency of water heaters and major appliances and keep showers and faucets unclogged, the report found. The study was commissioned by the Water Quality Research Foundation (WQRF) in 2009. Battelle Memorial Institute is a renowned independent testing and research facility dedicated to applied science and technology development.

Among some of the key findings of the study:

Gas water heaters:

Gas storage tank household water heaters operated on softened water maintained the original factory efficiency rating over a 15-year lifetime.

On the other hand, hard water can lead to as much as a 48% loss of efficiency in water heaters.

Each five grains per gallon of water hardness causes a 4% loss in efficiency and 4% increase in cost for gas storage tank water heaters when using 50 gallons of hot water per day. (On 30 gpg hard water, that’s 24% less efficient than with softened water.)

Each five grains per gallon of hardness causes an 8% loss in efficiency and 8% increase in cost when using 100 gallons of hot water per day in a gas storage tank water heater. (On 30 gpg hard water, that’s 48% less efficient than with softened water.)

Electric water heaters:

Up to 30 pounds of calcium carbonate rocklike scale can accumulate in these heaters over time, according to the study. The life of the heating element will be shortened due to scale buildup because of increased operating temperature of the heating element.

Also each five gpg of water hardness causes 0.4 pounds of scale accumulation each year in electric storage tank household water heaters. Such scale adversely affects the water heater’s performance. Battelle says in the electric storage water heaters operating on unsoftened water “the life of the heating element can be expected to shorten due to scale buildup increasing the operating temperature of the element.”

Independent study: Softeners among ‘very best’ household energy savers
Devices offer green benefits to water heaters, appliances, showerheads

Tankless heaters:

Indoor instantaneous gas water heaters (tankless heaters) operated on softened water maintained the original factory efficiency rating over a 15-year lifetime.

The study found that tankless water heaters completely failed to function because of scale plugging in the downstream plumbing after only 1.6 years of equivalent hot water use on 26 gpg hard water. Softened water saves 34% of costs compared to operating on 20 gpg and saves 47% compared to operation on 30 gpg hard water.

Showerheads and faucets:

Showerheads on soft water maintained a brilliant luster and full flow. Faucets on softened water performed well throughout the study; nearly as well as the day they were installed. Showerheads on hard water lost 75% of the flow rate in less than 18 months. Faucets on hard water could not maintain the specified 1.25 gallons per minute flow rate because of scale collection of the strainers. The strainers on the faucets using unsoftened water were almost completely plugged after 19 equivalent days of testing.

Appliances:

In the study, dishwashers and washing machines were operated for 30 days and 240 completed wash cycles on soft and hard water sources. The units using soft water were almost completely free of any water scale buildup. As the report states, they appeared as if they could be cleaned up to look like new with just a quick wipe down. the appearance of the inside of units using hard water showed the need for deliming and cleaning due to the buildup of scale and deposits.

WQA is a not-for-profit association that provides public information about water treatment issues and also trains and certifies professionals to better serve consumers. WQA has more than 2,500 members internationally.

Corporate Accountability International, a nonprofit group, reported the bottled water spending of 5 states – Maryland, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oregon.  Spending ranged from $78,000 to $475,000.  Citing the irony of the government itself choosing bottled water over tap water (regulated and declared “safe” by our government), the group called on the states to stop spending money on bottled water. 

 

State spends $200,000 on bottled water

According to a new report released today, the state of Maryland spent at least $200,000 on bottled water last year.

The report, called Getting States Off the Bottle, was released by Corporate Accountability International, a membership nonprofit that calls out corporations on their "irresponsible and dangerous" actions.

The group says water bottling companies scare the public into drinking only bottle water that fouls the environment and burdens the budget. But in about 44 percent of cases, bottle water is tap water. At the same time state and local governments are buying into the companies’ PR campaign that local tap water is unsafe, the governments are failing to invest in proper upkeep of water infrastructure, the report says.

The report authors have taken a look at state bottled water expenditures — though a real look is tough because a lot of the water purchases are hard to track. This is the second installment of the report and includes five states. Maryland is one. The others are Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico and Oregon. The range of spending was between $78,000 and $475,000 during fiscal ‘09.

“Plastic water bottles are a major contributor to waste in our stream, rivers, and bay.” said Mary Roby, executive director of Herring Run Watershed Association, in a statement. She participated in an event to draw attention to the bottled water today in Druid Hill Park. She and others called on Gov. O’Malley to cancel state spending on bottled water.

Supporters say more than 100 cities and three states (Illinois, Virginia and New York) already have cut spending on bottled water or upped their contribution to public water.

Corporate Accountability International says officials in Gov. O’Malley’s office have said they will  work on reducing spending on bottled water and continue to invest in public water. Already the state has funneled $119 million in stimulus money to water quality and drinking water projects in the state. The group says public water systems across the country need about $22 billion in investment.

The group also wants other public workers — and the public — to cut bottled water use in non-emergency situations. Officials there say surveys show a third of people who had switched to bottled water have recently switched back.

Are you one of them?

The New York Times is taking a deep look at tap water through a series of articles examining various aspects of tap water, pollution, and related issues.  The following article looks at the 35 year old Safe Drinking Water Act, which regulates 91 contaminates in our tap water.  The basic premise of the article is that with over 60,000 chemicals in use in the U.S., the number of regulated contaminants is inadequate and leading to “legal” water that still presents serious health risks.

My two favorite lines from the article:

• Dr. Parekh has struggled to make his case. “People don’t understand that just because water is technically legal, it can still present health risks,” he said. (Yikes!)
• “They supposedly discovered these chemicals, and then they ruined the reservoir by putting black pimples all over it,” said Laurie Pepper, whose home overlooks the manmade lake (this line is funnier when read in the context of the article). 

So, what’s the solution?  Black balls on reservoirs to block sunlight, thereby preventing some contaminants from converting to “likely” cancer causing agents?  I cannot believe this was actually done.  Thrown around in a brainstorming session?  Sure.  Drawn up on a cocktail napkin?  Absolutely?  But, workers actually dumped a bunch of balls into a real live reservoir. Wow.   I am not saying that it cannot work.  It may even be the best solution.  I just can’t believe it was actually done.

As for the solution, you cannot regulate and test for 60,000 chemicals. Plus, many of those chemicals are likely not harmful.  But, as the article states there are many harmful chemicals that are not regulated.  And some of the maximum “legal” limits for certain chemicals still allow a harmful level of contaminants in our drinking water.  Eliminating all of these chemicals entirely would be cost prohibitive and unnecessary.  As I’ve mentioned many times, the great majority of tap water is not used for drinking water, but for irrigation, toilets, showers, laundry, etc.  To me, calling tap water “drinking water” is misleading as it presumes all tap water will be consumed when that is clearly not the case.  In my mind, the municipalities should deliver us good, safe “tap water” and those of us who want a higher standard for the relatively tiny percentage that is consumed as “drinking water” should treat it ourselves.  If a technology comes along to purify all tap water to drinking water standards that is not cost prohibitive, that would be great.  But, until then, a small investment in a quality reverse osmosis unit is a pretty good bet. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/us/17water.html?_r=1&sudsredirect=true

That Tap Water Is Legal but May Be Unhealthy

Irfan Khan/The Los Angeles Times, via Associated Press

This Los Angeles reservoir contained chemicals that sunlight converted to compounds associated with cancer. The city used plastic balls to block the sun, but nearby homeowners asked why, if the water didn’t violate the law.

By CHARLES DUHIGG

Published: December 16, 2009

The 35-year-old federal law regulating tap water is so out of date that the water Americans drink can pose what scientists say are serious health risks — and still be legal.

Toxic Waters

Outdated Laws

Articles in this series are examining the worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.

What’s in Your Water

The data was collected by an advocacy organization, the Environmental Working Group, who shared it with The Times.  Only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet more than 60,000 chemicals are used within the United States, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates. Government and independent scientists have scrutinized thousands of those chemicals in recent decades, and identified hundreds associated with a risk of cancer and other diseases at small concentrations in drinking water, according to an analysis of government records by The New York Times.

But not one chemical has been added to the list of those regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2000.

Other recent studies have found that even some chemicals regulated by that law pose risks at much smaller concentrations than previously known. However, many of the act’s standards for those chemicals have not been updated since the 1980s, and some remain essentially unchanged since the law was passed in 1974.

All told, more than 62 million Americans have been exposed since 2004 to drinking water that did not meet at least one commonly used government health guideline intended to help protect people from cancer or serious disease, according to an analysis by The Times of more than 19 million drinking-water test results from the District of Columbia and the 45 states that made data available.

In some cases, people have been exposed for years to water that did not meet those guidelines.

But because such guidelines were never incorporated into the Safe Drinking Water Act, the vast majority of that water never violated the law.

Some officials overseeing local water systems have tried to go above and beyond what is legally required. But they have encountered resistance, sometimes from the very residents they are trying to protect, who say that if their water is legal it must be safe.

Dr. Pankaj Parekh, director of the water quality division for the City of Los Angeles, has faced such criticism. The water in some city reservoirs has contained contaminants that become likely cancer-causing compounds when exposed to sunlight.

To stop the carcinogens from forming, the city covered the surface of reservoirs, including one in the upscale neighborhood of Silver Lake, with a blanket of black plastic balls that blocked the sun.

Then complaints started from owners of expensive houses around the reservoir. “They supposedly discovered these chemicals, and then they ruined the reservoir by putting black pimples all over it,” said Laurie Pepper, whose home overlooks the manmade lake. “If the water is so dangerous, why can’t they tell us what laws it’s violated?”

Dr. Parekh has struggled to make his case. “People don’t understand that just because water is technically legal, it can still present health risks,” he said. “And so we encounter opposition that can become very personal.”

Some federal regulators have tried to help officials like Dr. Parekh by pushing to tighten drinking water standards for chemicals like industrial solvents, as well as a rocket fuel additive that has polluted drinking water sources in Southern California and elsewhere. But those efforts have often been blocked by industry lobbying.

Drinking water that does not meet a federal health guideline will not necessarily make someone ill. Many contaminants are hazardous only if consumed for years. And some researchers argue that even toxic chemicals, when consumed at extremely low doses over long periods, pose few risks. Others argue that the cost of removing minute concentrations of chemicals from drinking water does not equal the benefits.

Moreover, many of the thousands of chemicals that have not been analyzed may be harmless. And researchers caution that such science is complicated, often based on extrapolations from animal studies, and sometimes hard to apply nationwide, particularly given that more than 57,400 water systems in this country each deliver, essentially, a different glass of water every day.

Government scientists now generally agree, however, that many chemicals commonly found in drinking water pose serious risks at low concentrations.

And independent studies in such journals as Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Environmental Health Perspectives; American Journal of Public Health; and Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, as well as reports published by the National Academy of Sciences, suggest that millions of Americans become sick each year from drinking contaminated water, with maladies from upset stomachs to cancer and birth defects.

More…

 

Okay, so that is pretty alarming.  Twenty percent is a significant figure.  According to the New York Times, this figure includes only significant violations, not paperwork or minor problems.  One in five of our water treatment systems have violated our own Drinking Water standards for “Safe” water.  Yikes!

Here are some highlights of what they found in water data since 2004:

• Over 3 million Americans were exposed to illegal levels of arsenic and radioactive contaminants through their tap water
• Arsenic Standards:  “A system could deliver tap water that puts residents at a 1-in-600 risk of developing bladder cancer from arsenic, and still comply with the law.”  Double Yikes!
• In NY, over 200 water systems delivered illegal levels of bacteria in their tap water.
• Up to “19 million Americans may become ill each year due to just the parasites, viruses and bacteria in drinking water” 

The politicians will continue to point fingers to deflect blame and while they do, very little will change.  The US does need to address its water issues and a serious effort will be required to solve the many issues.  Providing safe drinking water to everyone in the US is no easy task and we realistically cannot expect perfection.  In the meantime, however, I would still suggest taking matters into your own hands and providing your own level of protection with a quality reverse osmosis system.  Yes, self promotion once again, but the New York Times brought it up, not me!

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34323634/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/page/2/

Millions in U.S. drink dirty water, records show

Only 6 percent of systems that broke law since ’04 were fined, punished

By Charles Duhigg

updated 4:48 a.m. PT, Tues., Dec . 8, 2009

More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.

That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.

Regulators were informed of each of those violations as they occurred. But regulatory records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever fined or punished by state or federal officials, including those at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has ultimate responsibility for enforcing standards.

Studies indicate that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.

In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show.

‘Top priority’
On Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works committee will question a high-ranking E.P.A. official about the agency’s enforcement of drinking-water safety laws. The E.P.A. is expected to announce a new policy for how it polices the nation’s 54,700 water systems.

“This administration has made it clear that clean water is a top priority,” said an E.P.A. spokeswoman, Adora Andy, in response to questions regarding the agency’s drinking water enforcement. The E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, this year announced a wide-ranging overhaul of enforcement of the Clean Water Act, which regulates pollution into waterways.

“The previous eight years provide a perfect example of what happens when political leadership fails to act to protect our health and the environment,” Ms. Andy added.

Water pollution has become a growing concern for some lawmakers as government oversight of polluters has waned. Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, in 2007 asked the E.P.A. for data on Americans’ exposure to some contaminants in drinking water.

The New York Times has compiled and analyzed millions of records from water systems and regulators around the nation, as part of a series of articles about worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.

Carcinogens
An analysis of E.P.A. data shows that Safe Drinking Water Act violations have occurred in parts of every state. In the prosperous town of Ramsey, N.J., for instance, drinking water tests since 2004 have detected illegal concentrations of arsenic, a carcinogen, and the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethylene, which has also been linked to cancer.

In New York state, 205 water systems have broken the law by delivering tap water that contained illegal amounts of bacteria since 2004.

However, almost none of those systems were ever punished. Ramsey was not fined for its water violations, for example, though a Ramsey official said that filtration systems have been installed since then. In New York, only three water systems were penalized for bacteria violations, according to federal data.

The problem, say current and former government officials, is that enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been a federal priority.

“There is significant reluctance within the E.P.A. and Justice Department to bring actions against municipalities, because there’s a view that they are often cash-strapped, and fines would ultimately be paid by local taxpayers,” said David Uhlmann, who headed the environmental crimes division at the Justice Department until 2007.

“But some systems won’t come into compliance unless they are forced to,” added Mr. Uhlmann, who now teaches at the University of Michigan law school. “And sometimes a court order is the only way to get local governments to spend what is needed.”

A half-dozen current and former E.P.A. officials said in interviews that they tried to prod the agency to enforce the drinking-water law, but found little support.

“I proposed drinking water cases, but they got shut down so fast that I’ve pretty much stopped even looking at the violations,” said one longtime E.P.A. enforcement official who, like others, requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. “The top people want big headlines and million-dollar settlements. That’s not drinking-water cases.”

The majority of drinking water violations since 2004 have occurred at water systems serving fewer than 20,000 residents, where resources and managerial expertise are often in short supply.

It is unclear precisely how many American illnesses are linked to contaminated drinking water. Many of the most dangerous contaminants regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act have been tied to diseases like cancer that can take years to develop.

But scientific research indicates that as many as 19 million Americans may become ill each year due to just the parasites, viruses and bacteria in drinking water. Certain types of cancer — such as breast and prostate cancer — have risen over the past 30 years, and research indicates they are likely tied to pollutants like those found in drinking water.

Informal methods
The violations counted by the Times analysis include only situations where residents were exposed to dangerous contaminants, and exclude violations that involved paperwork or other minor problems.

In response to inquiries submitted by Senator Boxer, the E.P.A. has reported that more than three million Americans have been exposed since 2005 to drinking water with illegal concentrations of arsenic and radioactive elements, both of which have been linked to cancer at small doses.

In some areas, the amount of radium detected in drinking water was 2,000 percent higher than the legal limit, according to E.P.A. data.

But federal regulators fined or punished fewer than 8 percent of water systems that violated the arsenic and radioactive standards. The E.P.A., in a statement, said that in a majority of situations, state regulators used informal methods — like providing technical assistance — to help systems that had violated the rules.

But many systems remained out of compliance, even after aid was offered, according to E.P.A. data. And for over a quarter of systems that violated the arsenic or radioactivity standards, there is no record that they were ever contacted by a regulator, even after they sent in paperwork revealing their violations.

Those figures are particularly worrisome, say researchers, because the Safe Drinking Water Act’s limits on arsenic are so weak to begin with. A system could deliver tap water that puts residents at a 1-in-600 risk of developing bladder cancer from arsenic, and still comply with the law.

Despite the expected announcement of reforms, some mid-level E.P.A. regulators say they are skeptical that any change will occur.

“The same people who told us to ignore Safe Drinking Water Act violations are still running the divisions,” said one mid-level E.P.A. official. “There’s no accountability, and so nothing’s going to change.”

---

Taylor Made Water is having a warehouse sale this Friday from 10-4.  We’re offering “experienced” equipment at rock bottom prices to clean out our warehouse.

Get rid of the bottled water in your house and have your own pure water any time you want it.  We’ll have a full line of gear available from full 6 stage purification coolers with hot, cold, and room temp purified water to under counter filters.  Now is your chance to get a commercial grade water purification system and eliminate bottled water from your life.  We’ll also have water pumps, large water tanks, filters, and a host of other items.

Also check out our Keurig coffee brewers, Kcups, fresh roasted coffee, and more!!

10-4 Friday November 6!!

1915 Mark Court, Suite 110, Concord, CA.

 

 

Nestle is ending the bitter battle to put a huge plant in McCloud that would have taken 200 million gallons of water per year from McCloud for Neste’s bottled water division.  With the recent acquisition of a Sacramento site, the McCloud fight was not worth the battle.  McCloud has become a poster child of sorts for communities trying to prevent Nestle from bottling local water supplies.  This will no doubt be seen as a victory for the many small towns who see Nestle’s effort steps to secure more water sources for its bottling operations. 

http://www.watertechonline.com/news.asp?N_ID=72640

 

Nestlé’s Patience Runs Dry on Bottling Plant

The company met surprising resistance to its plan to bottle McCloud’s spring water. With the market shifting, it will move on

By Susan Berfield

After six years of surprisingly contentious and frustrating attempts to bottle the glacier-fed spring water flowing in the small Northern California town of McCloud, Nestlé is giving up.

In 2003, Nestlé (NESN) signed a contract to build a facility in McCloud. Some locals claimed the deal with the local government was done in secret, without proper environmental evaluation, and they managed to stall construction year after year. During that time, the economy bubbled and burst; people drank more bottled water and paid less for it; concerns about the environmental impact of the industry took hold; and Nestlé itself changed some of the ways it does business. Last year the company scaled back the project. Then, earlier this month, it withdrew its proposal altogether. McCloud had become an inconvenience.

In a Sept. 10 letter addressed to McCloud’s leaders and citizens, Kim E. Jeffery, the head of Nestle Waters North America, wrote: "We have sincerely appreciated the time, input, and patience both supporters and opponents have shown as all stakeholders considered our evolving project proposal in McCloud. We know that this dialogue has not been an easy process, and we are grateful for your willingness to stay engaged and provide us with feedback every step of the way."

GREENER OPTION

Jeffery went on to write that Nestlé no longer needed to build a plant in McCloud because it had secured a site in Sacramento that was closer to its Northern California customers, which would help lower costs and reduce the company’s environmental footprint. The site is in an industrial area. There is an existing facility, with all the permitting and zoning already in place. Nestlé will bottle spring water there as well as purify tap water for bottling.

In McCloud, a former mill town struggling to reinvent its economy, some were disappointed to lose the revenue and potential jobs. Debra Anderson, president of the McCloud Watershed Council, which led the fight against Nestlé, was elated. "I was thankful and grateful for this decision," she says. "A lot of things worked in our favor. My sense is that Nestlé felt pulling out of McCloud was a good business decision for all kinds of reasons: the economy, fuel costs, bad press. For them it would be a lot better to go somewhere else."

When BusinessWeek first chronicled the fight between Nestlé and its opponents in McCloud last year, it seemed likely that Nestlé (whose brands include Perrier, Poland Spring, and Arrowhead) would prevail, even if doing so took longer than usual. "I want all the t’s crossed, all the i’s dotted," Jeffery said of the project. "I don’t want anyone to say we didn’t do it right."

DECLINING PRICES

Even then, though, the economics of the bottled water industry were changing. It turns out that bottled water consumption peaked in 2007, at 29 gallons per person (having grown from 13.5 gallons a decade earlier). Prices, meanwhile, have been declining as competition from private-label brands increased. Bottled water itself became a commodity.

At Nestlé, now the largest bottled-water company in America, that complicated matters more. Nestlé is one of the few suppliers that mine pristine springs (in places such as McCloud) for much of its bottled water. Yet the brand most responsible for its growing market share during the Great Recession is Pure Life, which is purified tap water. Naturally, that process is cheaper to begin with: Nestlé doesn’t have to buy any land and usually doesn’t have to ship the bottled water very far.

Jeffery says thatNestlé’s recent actions should not leave the impression that a bigger shift from spring water to tap water is under way at the company. Nestlé does, of course, want to build smaller plants closer to its customers, for all kinds of reasons. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they will all be in cities and use municipal water (a business that also has plenty of critics). Even the Sacramento facility will bottle some spring water that Nestlé already owns.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Nestlé plans to open three new plants in the coming years, says Jeffery, and has some locations picked out already. One of them is Cascade Locks, a town 40 miles east of Portland, Ore. This time, Nestlé says it is trying to work with the whole community right from the beginning. Dave Palais, one of the company’s 10 geologists who look for new sources of water and Nestlé’s main representative in McCloud, says he’s in Cascade Locks for a couple of days every month to answer questions about a potential spring water bottling plant. When Nestlé holds meetings there, it brings in an outside facilitator to run them. Yet Anderson, of the McCloud Watershed Council, says she has already received calls from people in Cascade Locks asking for advice about how to deal with Nestlé.

Back in McCloud, Nestlé still owns the 250 acres it intended to build on. Jeffery says the company will have the land appraised and then look for a buyer. Nestlé has also promised to finish a two-year scientific study of the local watershed. "When it’s done, they will see they have abundant water," says Jeffery. "It’s a crime that the townspeople weren’t able to use it."

 

A Colorado report found bacteria in showerheads, especially when the showerhead is first started, including bacteria linked to pulmonary disease and biofilms.  They believe the pathogens are most dangerous for those with compromised immune systems, so there is no need to panic and start a bath only regiment.  The bacteria load is also highest when the shower is first turned on, so letting a little water run before you put your face in the water is a good idea.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/50fe20a5a5376631bbad2024f89b02c0.html 

 

Daily Bathroom Showers May Deliver Face Full of Pathogens, Says CU-Boulder Study

September 14, 2009

While daily bathroom showers provide invigorating relief and a good cleansing for millions of Americans, they also can deliver a face full of potentially pathogenic bacteria, according to a surprising new University of Colorado at Boulder study.

The researchers used high-tech instruments and lab methods to analyze roughly 50 showerheads from nine cities in seven states that included New York City, Chicago and Denver. They concluded about 30 percent of the devices harbored significant levels of Mycobacterium avium, a pathogen linked to pulmonary disease that most often infects people with compromised immune systems but which can occasionally infect healthy people, said CU-Boulder Distinguished Professor Norman Pace, lead study author.

It’s not surprising to find pathogens in municipal waters, said Pace. But the CU-Boulder researchers found that some M. avium and related pathogens were clumped together in slimy "biofilms" that clung to the inside of showerheads at more than 100 times the "background" levels of municipal water. "If you are getting a face full of water when you first turn your shower on, that means you are probably getting a particularly high load of Mycobacterium avium, which may not be too healthy," he said.

The study appeared in the Sept. 14 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Co-authors of the study included CU-Boulder researchers Leah Feazel, Laura Baumgartner, Kristen Peterson and Daniel Frank and University Colorado Denver pediatrics department Associate Professor Kirk Harris. The study is part of a larger effort by Pace and his colleagues to assess the microbiology of indoor environments and was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Research at National Jewish Hospital in Denver indicates that increases in pulmonary infections in the United States in recent decades from so-called "non-tuberculosis" mycobacteria species like M. avium may be linked to people taking more showers and fewer baths, said Pace. Water spurting from showerheads can distribute pathogen-filled droplets that suspend themselves in the air and can easily be inhaled into the deepest parts of the lungs, he said.

Symptoms of pulmonary disease caused by M. avium can include tiredness, a persistent, dry cough, shortness of breath, weakness and "generally feeling bad," said Pace. Immune-compromised people like pregnant women, the elderly and those who are fighting off other diseases are more prone to experience such symptoms, said Pace, a professor in the molecular, cellular and developmental biology department.

The CU-Boulder researchers sampled showerheads in homes, apartment buildings and public places in New York, Illinois, Colorado, Tennessee and North Dakota.

Although scientists have tried cell culturing to test for showerhead pathogens, the technique is unable to detect 99.9 percent of bacteria species present in any given environment, said Pace. A molecular genetics technique developed by Pace in the 1990s allowed researchers to swab samples directly from the showerheads, isolate DNA, amplify it using the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, and determine the sequences of genes present in order to pinpoint particular pathogen types.

"There have been some precedents for concern regarding pathogens and showerheads," said Pace. "But until this study we did not know just how much concern."

During the early stages of the study, the CU team tested showerheads from smaller towns and cities, many of which were using well water rather than municipal water. "We were starting to conclude that pathogen levels we detected in the showerheads were pretty boring," said Feazel, first author on the study. "Then we worked up the New York data and saw a lot of M. avium. It completely reinvigorated the study."

In addition to the showerhead swabbing technique, Feazel took several individual showerheads, broke them into tiny pieces, coated them with gold, used a fluorescent dye to stain the surfaces and used a scanning electron microscope to look at the surfaces in detail. "Once we started analyzing the big metropolitan data, it suddenly became a huge story to us," said Feazel, who began working in Pace’s lab as an undergraduate.

In Denver, one showerhead in the study with high loads of the pathogen Mycobacterium gordonae was cleaned with a bleach solution in an attempt to eradicate it, said Pace. Tests on the showerhead several months later showed the bleach treatment ironically caused a three-fold increase in M. gordonae, indicating a general resistance of mycobacteria species to chlorine.

Previous studies by Pace and his group found massive enrichments of M. avium in "soap scum" commonly found on vinyl shower curtains and floating above the water surface of warm therapy pools. A 2006 therapy pool study led by Pace and CU-Boulder Professor Mark Hernandez showed high levels of M. avium in the indoor pool environment were linked to a pneumonia-like pulmonary condition in pool attendants known as "lifeguard lung," leading the CU team into the showerhead study, said Pace.

Additional studies under way by Pace’s team include analyses of air in New York subways, hospital waiting rooms, office buildings and homeless shelters. Indoor air typically has about 1 million bacteria per cubic meter and municipal tap water has rough 10 million bacteria per cubic meter, said Pace.

So is it dangerous to take showers? "Probably not, if your immune system is not compromised in some way," said Pace. "But it’s like anything else — there is a risk associated with it." Pace said since plastic showerheads appear to "load up" with more pathogen-enriched biofilms, metal showerheads may be a good alternative.

"There are lessons to be learned here in terms of how we handle and monitor water," said Pace. "Water monitoring in this country is frankly archaic. The tools now exist to monitor it far more accurately and far less expensively that what is routinely being done today."

In 2001 the National Academy of Sciences awarded Pace the Selman Waxman Award — considered the nation’s highest award in microbiology — for pioneering the molecular genetic techniques he now uses to rapidly detect, identify and classify microbe species using nucleic acid technology without the need for lab cultivation. That same year he was awarded a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" for his work.

A video news release on the showerhead and pathogen study is available at www.colorado.edu/news.